A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[diver52]

A more important question is did it really happen. Did God literally command Abraham to kill his son and then stop him from doing it.

Ok. Did he?

You keep repeating yourself but fail to see as you apparently either do not want to or would rather ignore the portions of the book which perfectly explain that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is of the spiritual realm. It is a normal flawed precept humans in general have if they either do not look for the Spirit of God or would rather ignore that God exist and is in control whether they like it or not.

John 3:3 -3:8

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Isaac is the spiritual son of Sarah and Abraham in old age/a period of time/ certain maturity.
The amazing name Isaac: meaning and etymology
Meaning
Laughter, He Will Laugh
Etymology
From the verbs צחק (sahaq) and שחק (sahaq), to laugh or make fun.

That has nothing to do with the topic. So let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. The Bible said that God instructed Abraham to kill his only son in an act of human sacrifice. That makes God an ass. That he told him after not to do it does not change the fact that he was an ass. If you wish to worship an ass, that is certainly your choice. My only point is that I, for the life of me, do not get why you would choose to do so.

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

 

[RodISHI]

A more important question is did it really happen. Did God literally command Abraham to kill his son and then stop him from doing it.

Ok. Did he?

You keep repeating yourself but fail to see as you apparently either do not want to or would rather ignore the portions of the book which perfectly explain that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is of the spiritual realm. It is a normal flawed precept humans in general have if they either do not look for the Spirit of God or would rather ignore that God exist and is in control whether they like it or not.

John 3:3 -3:8

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Isaac is the spiritual son of Sarah and Abraham in old age/a period of time/ certain maturity.
The amazing name Isaac: meaning and etymology
Meaning
Laughter, He Will Laugh
Etymology
From the verbs צחק (sahaq) and שחק (sahaq), to laugh or make fun.

That has nothing to do with the topic. So let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. The Bible said that God instructed Abraham to kill his only son in an act of human sacrifice. That makes God an ass. That he told him after not to do it does not change the fact that he was an ass. If you wish to worship an ass, that is certainly your choice. My only point is that I, for the life of me, do not get why you would choose to do so.

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

 

[diver52]

Ok. Did he?

You keep repeating yourself but fail to see as you apparently either do not want to or would rather ignore the portions of the book which perfectly explain that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is of the spiritual realm. It is a normal flawed precept humans in general have if they either do not look for the Spirit of God or would rather ignore that God exist and is in control whether they like it or not.

John 3:3 -3:8

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Isaac is the spiritual son of Sarah and Abraham in old age/a period of time/ certain maturity.
The amazing name Isaac: meaning and etymology
Meaning
Laughter, He Will Laugh
Etymology
From the verbs צחק (sahaq) and שחק (sahaq), to laugh or make fun.

That has nothing to do with the topic. So let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. The Bible said that God instructed Abraham to kill his only son in an act of human sacrifice. That makes God an ass. That he told him after not to do it does not change the fact that he was an ass. If you wish to worship an ass, that is certainly your choice. My only point is that I, for the life of me, do not get why you would choose to do so.

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

Gotcha. I am not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[RodISHI]

You keep repeating yourself but fail to see as you apparently either do not want to or would rather ignore the portions of the book which perfectly explain that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is of the spiritual realm. It is a normal flawed precept humans in general have if they either do not look for the Spirit of God or would rather ignore that God exist and is in control whether they like it or not.

John 3:3 -3:8

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Isaac is the spiritual son of Sarah and Abraham in old age/a period of time/ certain maturity.
The amazing name Isaac: meaning and etymology
Meaning
Laughter, He Will Laugh
Etymology
From the verbs צחק (sahaq) and שחק (sahaq), to laugh or make fun.

That has nothing to do with the topic. So let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. The Bible said that God instructed Abraham to kill his only son in an act of human sacrifice. That makes God an ass. That he told him after not to do it does not change the fact that he was an ass. If you wish to worship an ass, that is certainly your choice. My only point is that I, for the life of me, do not get why you would choose to do so.

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

Gotcha. I am not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

Obviously you aren't as you keep repeating yourself while ignoring what the entire scripture says.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It isn't a PC limiter which prevents me from doing anything. It's an honest view of humanity. We hurt each other because we like to hurt each other. All of the rest of it is just excuses.

Then extend your logic to include the "excuses" for better behavior. For not hurting each other. Like, a modern,liberal society with a far superior social contract to any found in any islamic country. Like secular reform of religion so that fewer people harm each other in its name. You aren'tt going to wriggle out from under that. Your attempt to avoid labelling any idea, set of ideas, or culture as superior is clearly a reault of a PC Limiter you claim not to have. But here it is, on display.

If one were hired to perform an honest analysis of cultures, say, comparing Canada to to Saudi Arabia, and that one turned in a paper saying, "Well, people just find excuses to hurt each other. No word on which culture is objectively better and why. The end.", that one would be immediately fired. You know this. If this honest analysis is something you dont want any part of, because you are too squeamish, then just admit it.

 

[diver52]

It isn't a PC limiter which prevents me from doing anything. It's an honest view of humanity. We hurt each other because we like to hurt each other. All of the rest of it is just excuses.

Then extend your logic to include the "excuses" for better behavior. For not hurting each other. Like, a modern,liberal society with a far superior social contract to any found in any islamic country. Like secular reform of religion so that fewer people harm each other in its name. You aren'tt going to wriggle out from under that. Your attempt to avoid labelling any idea, set of ideas, or culture as superior is clearly a reault of a PC Limiter you claim not to have. But here it is, on display.

If one were hired to perform an honest analysis of cultures, say, comparing Canada to to Saudi Arabia, and that one turned in a paper saying, "Well, people just find excuses to hurt each other. No word on which culture is objectively better and why. The end.", that one would be immediately fired. You know this. If this honest analysis is something you dont want any part of, because you are too squeamish, then just admit it.

An increased level of technology has extended what we consider to be "us". We tend to treat "us" with a modicum of respect.

There is no objectively better culture. If you were living in Saudi Arabia you would hold that that culture was better. It is all subjective. But if you actually wish to look in an objective manner at the ME:

The western nations took over almost all of the area during the imperialist age of the 19th and 20th centuries. They took the resources and treated the people there as second and third class citizens in their own countries. Then we brought two world wars to their lands. Following that, we inserted dictators we deemed to be friendly to our desire to continue to take their resources. Like the Shah of Iran, the Saudi royal family, etc. Then, when the whole thing boiled over we sat back, scratched our heads and wondered what happened. It must be their culture.

What you are doing is the same old us vs. them mentality. We are good, they are bad.

 

[diver52]

That has nothing to do with the topic. So let me see if I can put this as simply as possible. The Bible said that God instructed Abraham to kill his only son in an act of human sacrifice. That makes God an ass. That he told him after not to do it does not change the fact that he was an ass. If you wish to worship an ass, that is certainly your choice. My only point is that I, for the life of me, do not get why you would choose to do so.

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

Gotcha. I am not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

Obviously you aren't as you keep repeating yourself while ignoring what the entire scripture says.

I do not ignore the stories about God's behavior. You are, of course, free to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no objectively better culture.

How absolutely amoral of you. You are obviously wrong. Our western , liberal culture is far superior to what exists in, say, Saudi Arabia. You should be ashamed of yourself for your cowardly deference.

 

[diver52]

There is no objectively better culture.

How absolutely amoral of you. You are obviously wrong. Our western , liberal culture is far superior to what exists in, say, Saudi Arabia. You should be ashamed of yourself for your cowardly deference.

Do you think a citizen of Saudi Arabia would agree with you?

 

[Taz]

There is no objectively better culture.

How absolutely amoral of you. You are obviously wrong. Our western , liberal culture is far superior to what exists in, say, Saudi Arabia. You should be ashamed of yourself for your cowardly deference.

Do you think a citizen of Saudi Arabia would agree with you?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you think a citizen of Saudi Arabia would agree with you?

Irrelevant. That's what objective is.

 

[diver52]

Do you think a citizen of Saudi Arabia would agree with you?

Irrelevant. That's what objective is.

I see. Their position doesn't matter because they aren't us. Which pretty much exemplifies my point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see. Their position doesn't matter because they aren't us.

I never stated or implied that. That is you inventing low hanging fruit for yourself, as , apparently, you can't muster a suitable counter to anything i actually said. Very lazy of you.

Furthermore, your invented fantasy point relies completely on a monolithic opinion of all saud arabians that states their society is morally superior to ours, which, of course, is not reality. So there you have a fantasy wrapped in a fantasy, both of your invention.

 

[diver52]

I see. Their position doesn't matter because they aren't us.

I never stated or implied that. That is you inventing low hanging fruit for yourself, as , apparently, you cant muster a suitable counter to anything i actually said. Very lazy of you.

You haven't said anything, just stated that our culture is better than theirs. You haven't said why, provided any support for the claim and stated that any position members of the other culture might have are irrelevant.

Give me your objective standards. For example, of the two cultures which has killed the most people and caused the most pain in the last 150 years?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You haven't said anything, just stated that our culture is better than theirs.

And it is objectively better. But be aware that I am talkong about the social contract, and human rights, and "better" in the context of the objectove well beong of humans.

And yes, ours is superior. And if you disagree, you are wrong.

Equal rights for women is objectively better than otherwise. Not having a state religion is objectovely better than otherwise. Being free to draw a cartoon of a prophet without fear of injury or death is objectovely better than otherwise. Being able to go out in publoc in the 100 degree heat without a burlap sack on is objectively better than otherwise.

Moral questions often can and do have correct answers.

 

[diver52]

You haven't said anything, just stated that our culture is better than theirs.

And it is objectively better. But be aware that I am talkong about the social contract, and human rights, and "better" in the context of the objectove well beong of humans.

And yes, ours is superior. And if you disagree, you are wrong.

Equal rights for women is objectively better than otherwise. Not having a state religion is objectovely better than otherwise. Being free to draw a cartoon of a prophet without fear of injury or death is objectovely better than otherwise. Being able to go out in publoc in the 100 degree heat without a burlap sack on is objectively better than otherwise.

Moral questions often can and do have correct answers.

Because you say so. They say otherwise. It's all subjective, not objective.

But I notice you didn't respond to my question. In fact, you failed to even add it to the quote. Which of the two cultures killed the most people and caused the most pain in the last 150 years? Surely that would be considered objective evidence.

 

[RodISHI]

It has everything to do with the topic as you are not getting it. You are claiming God required a human sacrifice when that is not the case. It is your screwed up precepts. Again flesh and spirit are different and if you cannot see or understand that you miss it all.

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

Gotcha. I am not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

Obviously you aren't as you keep repeating yourself while ignoring what the entire scripture says.

I do not ignore the stories about God's behavior. You are, of course, free to do so.

You are trying to blame God for the choices carnally minded humans make and you are in error.

 

[diver52]

Gen 22:2 " And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

You are too dense to understand that the whole Old Testament is an accounting of the HOSTS of heaven and earth. Hosts= spiritual beings, regulators, things birthed into the spirit to assist a living soul overcome carnal or earthly leanings. "Mountains" are obstacles in your own mind that prevent you from being full/complete/spiritually matured.

Gotcha. I am not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

Obviously you aren't as you keep repeating yourself while ignoring what the entire scripture says.

I do not ignore the stories about God's behavior. You are, of course, free to do so.

You are trying to blame God for the choices carnally minded humans make and you are in error.

I'm not. I'm blaming God for God's choices. At least based upon the stories.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not. I'm blaming God for God's choices. At least based upon the stories.

Criticize the authors, perhaps--and the fact that culture changes and we don't view things today as it was viewed then. Blaming God when all we know is how the authors wrote the stories and how we now view them through the lens of our own culture, not the cultures in ancient times is rather like blaming the rain when the problem is the leak in the roof.

 

[Taz]

I'm not. I'm blaming God for God's choices. At least based upon the stories.

Criticize the authors, perhaps--and the fact that culture changes and we don't view things today as it was viewed then. Blaming God when all we know is how the authors wrote the stories and how we now view them through the lens of our own culture, not the cultures in ancient times is rather like blaming the rain when the problem is the leak in the roof.

So you're saying that the bible is bullshit.